tv [untitled] September 21, 2012 7:00pm-7:30pm PDT
>> good morning. today is wednesday, september 19th, 2012. this is the meeting of the abatement appeals board. i would like to remind everyone to please turnoff all electronic devises. the first item on the agenda is roll call. president? >> here. >> commissioner lee? >> here. >> commissioner mar? >> here.
>> commissioner mccarthy? >> here. >> commissioner walker. >> here. >> commissioner mccray is expected and commissioner mel gar is excused. we have a quorum and the next item is item b, the oath. will all parties giving testimony today please stand and raise your right hand? do you swear that the testimony you are about to give is the truth to the best of your knowledge? you may be seated. >> thank you.
* >> all commissioners in favor? >> aye. >> any opposed? the minutes are approved. item d, continued appeals, case no. 675 2, 17 43 12th avenue. appellant, 17 43 12th avenue, san francisco, california. action requested by appellant to reverse the order of abatement. for the record, commissioner mccray is present. >> good morning. >> for opponent dubrovsky. i'm reporting that since the last meeting we had a survey
done in order to assess the topography that had changed at the next property, at the wong's property. that survey has been done and the plans are being drawn up. the new plans, in order to reflect what the new topography is on the neighboring property. and we have our engineer here who is ready to answer any questions mr. javier who has drawn up the plans or is in the process of doing is according to the survey that he conducted. so, the schedule is once the plans are done, which is expected to be done within the next week or two, then they will go through the building department and then our judge, the arbitrator in the case, is standing ready to fine tune the last details. however, prior to that, i and opposing counsel have a meeting
scheduled for next week, but not specified the date, but we're working on that date. so, pretty much the project is moving forward. so, we are asking for a further continuance to allow us to get the plans done and then the details worked out either with the attorneys or with the help of our judge arbitrator. so, i'm here to ask for another couple months' continuance so we can do this and hopefully we won't have to come back here. so, that's what i have to do. i would like to have our engineer, mr. [speaker not understood] to report to you, too. counsel for mr. wong is also present. we will just confirm that's what we're working on and i'm prepared to take any questions you have. >> commissioner walker? >> once the plans are approved,
what is the estimate of time for executing and getting the project completed? i prefer our engineer to answer that question in terms of how long it would take to have it executed. i can answer the other part because of the fact that this is -- we're talking about a significant amount of money involved. and because of insurance being also part of it, it may take about couple of three weeks to get that done. but as far as execution from an engineering point of view, i'd rather have him address that question. >> okay. so, really the question is the time to get the permit, assuming there's movement forward, and then executing. >> yes, definitely, good morning, members of the board. javier chavareia.
as she discussed we have completed top graphic survey. a few small changes have occurred. when we went to the property to implement the required modifications to the plans, we noticed that the topographic conditions had changed. so, we recommended to have a survey done so, thus, our plans would reflect exactly what needs to be done. we have completed the survey. we are in the process of preparing the revised grading plan, and our drawings will be completed early next week. permit process should be fairly simple, as all the drawings have been previously approved under the previous schemes and the modifications that we're making are really not substantial from the structural or civil engineering standpoint. so far we don't foresee any problems obtaining the permit. when it comes to the execution of the program, we are approaching the rainy season.
the construction of the retaining wall involves a substantial amount of excavation and modification. so, that's something that the two property owners are going to have to discuss because it will create an impact too great in winter. it will be also important to get the opinion of the geotechnical engineer to see if he advises us to remove that retaining wall during the winter season. the whole process, if done efficiently, can probably be done in a matter of six to eight weeks. nevertheless, depending on the conditions of the weather, depending on the conditions of the season, may not be feasible to implement it immediately. >> thank you. >> you still have some time.
i'd be happy to answer any questions you have other than what has been presented to you. >> if you're done, could we hear from the department and see what the department feels? >> [speaker not understood] for the department. clearly the survey is a new development. i'll just leave it in your hands. we've had a number of continuances so, i'll just leave it with you. >> just what we've got, the structural soundness, do you feel, are we -- i know we kind of focused a lot on that the last time, how you felt, was it safe, you know, was it a hazardous situation out there. has that changed or -- >> well, as was mentioned, the survey has been made and it sounds like now that they'll get a geo tech in there so that should give us further
information also. >> i have a question. they mentioned the plans would be ready next week. six to eight weeks after a permit is issued. how long do you think it will take the department to review their submittals before a permit is issued? it >> it shouldn't take a long amount of time. they are going to be going in front of the arbitrator. i would say the department wouldn't be the one that will be holding this back. i'm sure the process with the arbitrator will take longer. >> commissioner walker? >> we have continued this sort of numerous times. i feel like i personally would look to some sort of permanent time frame. so, i mean, i know we have to
hear from the public on this before we really discuss it, so, maybe we should [inaudible]. >> comment? >> andreas becker for the record. i'm the representative for james t. wong, the owner of the downhill residents at 17 37 12th avenue. and i'd just like to confirm what ms. sarkesian just said and join her request for a continuance. i agree that a permanent timeline may need to be established, but the two parties are in agreement that we're making progress and i just wanted to support her request. >> is there any further public comment?
the commissioners can deliberate. >> i would actually like to make a motion that we uphold the order of abatement and hold it as the consideration is moving forward so we can give maybe a 90 days to do the permit and, you know, six months to do the -- considering that we are entering a rainy season, allow for that. but i think we need to draw -- i mean, it isn't usual that we extend these things over and over again like this. so, i think that it might be helpful to the process if somebody draws a line. it can get done and they can battle about it. that's my concern at this point, that it get done and we
minimize the possible risk here. so, that would be my motion, is to allow for -- >> six months in total seems reasonable. >> and whatever is reasonable for the permit. >> just ask a quick question. the assessment of cost will be in right away? yes. yes. >> so, there's a motion to offer a -- uphold the abatement for what is allowed to finish the work within six months, right? >> is there a second for that motion? >> i'm not sure if six months is too long. i wonder if six months is too long, excuse me. i was wondering if we can
shorten that. they did mention it would take six to eight weeks to fix the problem. so, i think maybe three months, at most. >> that's a friendly amendment. >> all right. >> there can be a rebuttal time, three minutes. go ahead, ma'am. go ahead. i'm sorry. my problem is that as we said, we are going into the rainy season. so, realistically speaking, if the plans are drawn up like, say, next week, we do meet and confer on the details. as soon as we get in front of our arbitrator within the month -- because we have to coordinate with the attorneys and the arbitrator. and i'm told that the arbitrator has several days in october. so, we're talking from there
and we have to have plan approval. then we're running into the rainy season. so, i don't know whether or not we can do it as -- we would like to do it because my client is invested in wanting to do it. the question is whether or not realistically speaking we can finish the project within the three months given this timetable, especially as we know construction is never -- >> my feeling is three months is essentially 12, 13 weeks. and the construction is estimated 6 to 8. we are doubling the time so i don't think the rainy season will actually [inaudible] the time allowed. i would say that's true for three months. let's try to get this done. i don't know whether or not -- the construction is six weeks, but there is also the tearing down of the existing structure, and i don't know whether or not that was taken into consideration. maybe mr. [speaker not understood] can address that. i have an impression it is
going to take some time to tear it down because we also have to work with the calendar of adjoining owners, the wongs. >> maybe you could go back and ask the arbitrator to maybe make the decision quickly so you can get started sooner perhaps. we're dealing with jambs and unfortunately their calendar, it's hard to control. >> the wongs, can counsel, please? i'm sorry, i forgot your name. andrea, please. have you before you came here this evening discussed the time frame at all with both parties, that you feel you would need with regard to coming to an agreement, not the construction time, but -- >> with regard to the whole package, how much time -- the construction itself, your agreement is important, but it's not relevant to the decision we have before us,
which is the permit. * so, i think that what we're saying is the job needs to be done and, you know, i think that it's a safety issue as far as retaining walls. and we've been dealing with this for a while. with regard to the time frame for the construction, that is something that mr. shabarea has more of an understanding than i do. i understand that the rainy season will possibly affect that time frame. i thought the six months was very fair. i understand this has been continued several times and we'd like to shorten it. i think in the interest of just accomplishing that, taking into account the risk that is there and your interest in trying to get this all done, i thought six months was very fair in terms of taking into account the rainy season and whatever construction delays there may
be. i'm sorry. and to address your question whether or not we have had discussion, i had discussions yesterday with co-counsel for the wongs about the fact that the survey has come out, and that next week we should be meeting and conferring on the details as to timing. and i was told by counsel today that he had checked with jams about the judge's availability and there are several days in october. >> i have to be honest with you, the only thing that bothers me, the only thing that's happened here is the survey, that's it. and if as somebody from the construction industry who knows how long it takes to get service, there has been a lot of down time between. i really want to be kind of conscious of the fact that you need the time frame and the rainy season and all that, but you have to understand our position. we were very clear the last
time that you got this time to do meaningful work and really the only thing you've come back here to us is the survey, which could have been done in a week or week-and-a-half. i understand that. unfortunately because we had to schedule the survey with the wongs, it took sometime. but in order for the attorneys to meet and confer, we needed that survey to be done and the results of the survey to be done. the judge's instructionses to us was -- there was an interim order that he had come out with and he instructed us to go and meet and confer on the details. and if we weren't able to agree on the details to come back to him. now, what the judge had not anticipated at that time when he made his award that a survey was going to be needed. so, in essence, it's not that we did not meet and confer because we were not doing anything. it's just that we had to wait for that survey to be done in order to meet and confer based on -- because the plans were
going to have to be changed according to the survey. [speaker not understood]. >> the department has rebuttal or do you have a comment? >> since wewer going down this road, the neighboring property has already gotten out of abatement related to this retaining wall. they appealed it, they didn't do so. in good faith to a solution. so, if you did issue the abatement and hold abatement for three or six months and assess the costs right away, it would actually put more property owners in a more even [speaker not understood] and it might actually help the solution. right now this property owner is kind of getting off light. the other property owner who isn't the full cause of the situation has agreed to suffer
another abatement already. so, i think i would really support the decision you are about to make. thanks. >> i will defer to the time frame. >> let's make a motion for three months to obtain the permit and three months to complete the work. >> for six months total? >> total times six months. >> agreed. >> i agree. >> second. >> call the question. >> is there public comment on the motion? on this motion? okay. did you address costs in the language will? -- there? >> and include assessment of costs. >> yes. >> there is a motion to -- >> uphold the department's recommendation for abatement to
give the appellant three months to obtain the permit and three months more to complete the work after receiving the permit. something like that. >> okay. that way you can do it quicker. >> call a roll call vote. president clench? >> yes. >> commissioner lee? >> yes. >> commissioner mar? >> yes. >> commissioner mccarthy? >> yes. >> commissioner mccurry? >> yes. >> commissioner walker? >> yes. >> the motion carries unanimously. item number 2, case no. 760 16 54 haight street, appellant [speaker not understood]. action requested by appellant, appellant has requested additional time to complete the work.
>> for the address 16 54 haight street, 2011, 52 853, the evaluation is to a permit was issued, evaluation, accessability issues, that permit expired. the date we renewed the permit, the work isn't finished yet. so, we would recommend that you uphold the order of abatement and impose assessment of costs. i did get a call from the representative of the appellant. the appellant [speaker not understood] members of the family were not able to attend today. the representative stated that they would comply with whatever decision you make today.
thank you. >> commissioner walker? >> what is your estimate of time for them to complete the work for the permit? >> when they originally filed the appeal, it was on the assumption that the work was going to be completed in a matter of weeks. but because of an illness in the family, their whole timeline changed and i would expect it should be fairly soon, but because of an illness in the family it's kind of unclear. >> well, -- >> excuse me. the accessability issues are on the ground floor in the commercial space? >> the evaluation relates to the permit that was issued,
let's see, okay, here we go. the language on the permits, [speaker not understood] handicap bathrooms, new ramp in the door entry and wheelchair lift, relocate water heater, remove rest room at basement, remove nonpermanent deck at rear. so, a lot of the work is done, but it is not complete yet. it is in the position of getting a final inspection. and the permit was renewed
january 23rd of this year. >> is there anybody here from the owner's side, the appellant? >> i did get a call saying they were unable to attend and they'll live with whatever decision you make. >> just to clarify, they didn't request a continuance? >> they didn't request a continuance and they have no issue with whatever decision you make. they will follow through with that to the best of their ability. >> so, it seems like the straightforward option is to uphold the abatement. do we need to give them an extension time? >> i think maybe if we included holding it in abeyance until 30 days or 60 days, whatever seems
reasonable to commissioners, i think. that's what i would suggest. >> what is reasonable? 30 days? >> 30 days seems reasonable. >> 30 days, let's do 30 days. thank you. >> so, is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, could someone restate the motion, please? >> the motion to uphold the abatement, to hold it in abeyance for 30 days. >> second. >> are there other thoughts [inaudible]? is there an assessment of cost? >> i thought i was done. [laughter] >> assessment of costs, $1,208. >> assessment of costs? >> yeah.
>> the motion, there is a motion and second to uphold the order of abatement, hold it in abeyance for 30 days and to include the assessment of costs. take a roll call vote. and there's no public comment. >> there was no public comment. >> okay. >> president clench? >> yes. >> commissioner lee? >> yes. >> commissioner mar? >> yes. >> commissioner mccarthy? >> yes. >> commissioner mccray? >> yes. >> commissioner walker? >> yes. >> the motion carries unanimously. item e, new appeals. case no. 67 62, 333 3 26th street, [speaker not understood] appellant lucerosllc. the appellant is requesting
more time to complete work to abate the offsetting code violation. >> good morning, mr. president, commissioners. [speaker not understood] inspection housing division. this case no. is 67 62, 33 23 sixth street deals with replacement of rear stairways for a three-unit building that is presently unoccupied. actually, the staff is granting the property owner -- requesting the property owner be given more time to complete the work as of september. they were able to submit plans which were approved and they were able to obtain the building permit to start construction, which they started a week ago. staff feels that by the end of this month the property owner
will satisfy the notice of violation and complete the work. >> 30 days? >> correct. as i said, the contractor has already started the work as of last week. >> commissioners have any questions? >> anybody here from the owner's side? no? public comment? >> there is no public comment on that item. >> move to uphold the order of abatement and hold it for 30 days and assess costs. >> thank you.